G train to Atlantic Ave

I just read an article in a local Brooklyn paper The Park Slope
something or other that the MTA might consider building a 700 ft
tunnel from Fulton St to Atlantic Ave on the IND crosstown. Any
thoughts on this?

Also, are they ever going to start using the Bergen St LL and the
express tracks?

klavier777 wrote:
> I just read an article in a local Brooklyn paper The Park Slope
> something or other that the MTA might consider building a 700 ft
> tunnel from Fulton St to Atlantic Ave on the IND crosstown. Any
> thoughts on this?

I don't quite get what that means. You mean a pedestrian transfer
between the A/C and G? Or between the G and the Altantic Yards?

If it's for pedestrian linking the A/C and G, why bother? There is
already a perfectly good transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, one stop away.

If you mean a track connection, I don't know what to say.

> Also, are they ever going to start using the Bergen St LL and the
> express tracks?

I heard talk of it briefly last year. I hear it's feasible, but the MTA
doesn't seem to be prioritizing it.

"klavier777" <klavier777@> wrote in message
news:c42894bd-027b-4a73-b59f-e6a1bcb12afd@m34g2000hsc..com...
>I just read an article in a local Brooklyn paper The Park Slope
> something or other that the MTA might consider building a 700 ft
> tunnel from Fulton St to Atlantic Ave on the IND crosstown. Any
> thoughts on this?

The plan is an underground pedestrian connection between Atlantic Terminal
Complex and the ex IND line to provide more transit access to the Atlantic
Yards project.

Makes good sense, but when construction starts, they'll say it'll be open in
a year, and three years later they'll still be working on an un-opened
passageway <g>.

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie

>If it's for pedestrian linking the A/C and G,
>why bother? There is already a perfectly
>good transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, one
>stop away.

Even though most of the major IND lines meet the other two divisions in
Downtown Brooklyn, IND transfers here suck. Connecting the G and C to
the Atlantic/Pacific complex means more choices for IND riders, and
better access to Brooklyn IND lines from BMT and IRT routes.

The proposed tunnel from Jay St. to Lawrence St. would also accomplish
this goal.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

> I don't see how this would improve access to the BMT or IRT lines from the
> IND. Unless the project is supposed to include links to the IRT too?
>
> I didn't get that this for the Atlantic Yards project (I wasn't clear what
> he meant).
>
>> The proposed tunnel from Jay St. to Lawrence St. would also accomplish
>> this goal.

A game at Atlantic Yards will put quite a strain on the
Atlantic-Pacific-LIRR Station, so a connection to the A-C and G Stations
that also avoids street level pedestrian traffic makes sense.

As much as I'm a supporter of the Atlantic Yards project, I think the
transit improvements should be on Rattner's dime. And motorists trying to
attend a game will discover that Robert Moses was right about it being a
lousy place for a baseball stadium. But downtown Brooklyn was a much busier
place back then, so there is capacity in the subways.

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie

J.R.Guthrie wrote:
>> I don't see how this would improve access to the BMT or IRT lines from the
>> IND. Unless the project is supposed to include links to the IRT too?
>>
>> I didn't get that this for the Atlantic Yards project (I wasn't clear what
>> he meant).
>>
>>> The proposed tunnel from Jay St. to Lawrence St. would also accomplish
>>> this goal.
>
> A game at Atlantic Yards will put quite a strain on the
> Atlantic-Pacific-LIRR Station, so a connection to the A-C and G Stations
> that also avoids street level pedestrian traffic makes sense.
>
> As much as I'm a supporter of the Atlantic Yards project, I think the
> transit improvements should be on Rattner's dime. And motorists trying to
> attend a game will discover that Robert Moses was right about it being a
> lousy place for a baseball stadium. But downtown Brooklyn was a much busier
> place back then, so there is capacity in the subways.

I agree in principle, but in practice stadiums in most places get "free"
road access - so do shopping centers and housing developments. Sadly,
if we want sports franchises at all (and my guess is they're good for
the local economy, regardless of whether they belong in downtown
Brooklyn or not), we taxpayers probably need to pay to transport people
to them.

On the bright side, I figure something that boosts revenue and ridership
- especially at times when I'm not riding! :-D - can't be all bad.
Maybe the G will get some attention from this too. I know stuff like
this doesn't make the MTA profitable, but maybe it could even be
justified by reducing the net loss over the long run.

"Bolwerk" <bolwerk@> wrote in message
news:13tbtbb9f1je225@corp.supernews.com...

> I understand all that (although I didn't realize farebox recovery was so
> high for the Subway). Just assuming it doesn't serve an important public
> service, like the SAS would, I think it makes sense to consider reducing
> the yearly loss when pet projects like this are completed. I mean, if
> it's going to just end up wasting more money every year, that's another
> story.

What's interesting is that NJT Rail and even Amtrak have far high farebox
recovery than the LIRR or Metro North <g>.

But then, as I've pointed out before, if you want a standard of comparison,
the NYW&B's farebox recovery was never less than around 120% And *that** is
always considered the epitome of transit losers.

Cheers,
Jim